Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

PP here. Okay, again, some sugar-coating would have helped, but fundamentally they were right.

https://www.thefire.org/news/why-most-calls-genocide-are-protected-speech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

PP here. Okay, again, some sugar-coating would have helped, but fundamentally they were right.

https://www.thefire.org/news/why-most-calls-genocide-are-protected-speech

Not okay when they rely on "in context." That's not the Ivy response when other groups are targeted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Nope. She made it clear that students chanting in support jewish genocide was acceptable per code of conduct, whether they actually did or not. This was not the legal answer but purely incorrect and seemingly emotional.

She’s being called on it because she missed an easy layup.

But it doesn’t violate the code of conduct unless it’s not just a “call” (speech) but accompanied by some sort of action (conduct) like backing kids into a library, following them around, etc.

Tthe real attack on Harvard is not that the above is incorrect — it’s not — but that they don’t enforce that policy consistently and do punish speech alone when it suits them, which they absolutely should not.

+1 This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

You missed the point. We don't need a therapist at a congressional hearing; we need supposed leaders to answer questions without hedging. The "in context" excuse was beyond lame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

You missed the point. We don't need a therapist at a congressional hearing; we need supposed leaders to answer questions without hedging. The "in context" excuse was beyond lame.

It wasn’t a hedge. It was “depends on context” — and then an explanation of conduct vs only speech. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt. Everyone wants their stupid safe space. I’d rather the Ivy League stopped policing student’s speech on all side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Their testimony will go down in history as a dark day in our country.

Yes it will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their testimony will go down in history as a dark day in our country.

Yes it will.

Oh please get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

+1 Given their academic credentials, their responses and arrogant behavior were rather shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

+1 Given their academic credentials, their responses and arrogant behavior were rather shocking.

I mean this sincerely: given their academic credentials, their arrogance was absolutely NOT shocking. Have you spent time around Ivy Leaguers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

You missed the point. We don't need a therapist at a congressional hearing; we need supposed leaders to answer questions without hedging. The "in context" excuse was beyond lame.

It wasn’t a hedge. It was “depends on context” — and then an explanation of conduct vs only speech. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt. Everyone wants their stupid safe space. I’d rather the Ivy League stopped policing student’s speech on all side.

This isn't about "hurt feelings." You're the one saying those words. I'm not Jewish, and my feelings are not at all hurt. I watched those leaders' responses in astonishment -- they were hesitating, hedging, and continuing to rely on the words "in context." I seriously doubt that David Duke and a group of Klansmen or Nazi types would be allowed to gather at any of those schools to speak--wouldn't matter if they "did anything" besides speak and carry signs or not. (As they shouldn't!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

+1 Given their academic credentials, their responses and arrogant behavior were rather shocking.

I mean this sincerely: given their academic credentials, their arrogance was absolutely NOT shocking. Have you spent time around Ivy Leaguers

PP here. LOL. You do have a point!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

You missed the point. We don't need a therapist at a congressional hearing; we need supposed leaders to answer questions without hedging. The "in context" excuse was beyond lame.

It wasn’t a hedge. It was “depends on context” — and then an explanation of conduct vs only speech. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt. Everyone wants their stupid safe space. I’d rather the Ivy League stopped policing student’s speech on all side.

This isn't about "hurt feelings." You're the one saying those words. I'm not Jewish, and my feelings are not at all hurt. I watched those leaders' responses in astonishment -- they were hesitating, hedging, and continuing to rely on the words "in context." I seriously doubt that David Duke and a group of Klansmen or Nazi types would be allowed to gather at any of those schools to speak--wouldn't matter if they "did anything" besides speak and carry signs or not. (As they shouldn't!)

This goes back to my point about the issue being about not the accuracy of the statements here — they were accurate — but whether the schools follow their own policies in other scenarios. I think David Duke and Nazi types should be allowed to chant (speech only) whatever they want.